Pew poll: Obama opens up lead over Romney among Catholics
Obama has substantially widened his lead among Catholic voters since June, the Pew poll found.
September 27th, 2012
11:24 AM ET

Pew poll: Obama opens up lead over Romney among Catholics

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama has opened up a significant lead among Catholic voters, a crucial swing voting bloc, according to a recent Pew poll.

Obama leads opponent Mitt Romney among Catholic voters by 54% to 39%, according to the survey, conducted from September 12 to 16 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Obama’s lead in the Pew survey comes despite outspoken recent criticism of the Obama administration from America’s Catholic bishops and despite Mitt Romney’s selection of a Catholic running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

The survey was released last week, but the findings on Catholic voters were highlighted this week by the Religion News Service, which notes that Obama held a much tighter 49-47% lead over Romney among Catholics in a June Pew poll.

John Green, a religion and politics expert at the University of Akron, said Obama’s gains among Catholic came from growing support among Hispanic and black Catholic voters, but also from white Catholics, among whom Obama is now tied with Romney.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

“That’s the part of the poll that I think is kind of surprising,” Green said, noting that Obama lost white Catholics in 2008, even as he won the overall Catholic vote.

Green said that it is white Catholics who were most likely to be receptive to the bishops’ recent attacks against the Obama administration over what the church says is the White House’s curtailment of religious freedom.

In its recent “Fortnight for Freedom,” campaign, the church urged American priests to denounce the administration’s requirement that health insurance companies provide free contraception coverage to employees, even if those employees work for Catholic organizations that oppose contraception.

“The bishops were hoping those efforts would bring more moderate and liberal Catholics, not necessarily for Romney but against the administration’s position,” Green said.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

John Allen, CNN’s chief Vatican analyst, noted that at least one other recent national poll gave Romney a slight lead among Catholics, and that Romney leads among Catholics who attend Mass each week.

“That either shows that the more practicing you are, the more pro-Romney (or anti-Obama) you are,” Allen said in an e-mail message, “or it says something about the political message Catholics are getting in their parishes these days.”

Catholic voters, who accounted for more than a quarter of the electorate in the 2008 election, have voted with the winning presidential candidate in every election going back to the early 1990s.

In 2008, Obama beat John McCain among Catholics by 54% to 45%. In 2004, John Kerry - the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy - lost the Catholic vote to George W. Bush, provoking Democrats to take Catholic outreach more seriously.

Both major parties had America’s highest-profile Catholic cleric, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, give the closing prayer at their recent political conventions.

The Democratic Convention also featured a Catholic nun who led a “nuns on the bus" tour attacking the federal budget that Ryan designed in his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The Obama and Romney campaigns have both rolled out Catholic outreach efforts in recent days, and the Romney camp has highlighted Ryan’s Catholicism.

“A faithful Catholic, Paul believes in the worth and dignity of every human life,” Romney said when he introduced Ryan as his running mate last month.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Barack Obama • Bishops • Catholic Church • Mitt Romney • Politics

soundoff (1,503 Responses)
  1. notraitors

    If this is true, then they need to lose their religious freedom

    September 28, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Huebert

      And the fascist mindset, so common among the far right, rears it's ugly head.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • notraitors

      If anyone is the fascist here, it is the Obama "administration" using the power of the government to force Catholic organizations to provide coverage for something that violates one of their tenents (however inexplicable that tenent may be). Of course all the leftist propaganda of a "war on women" seeks to distract from the true issue here

      September 28, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Wrenn_NYC

      no traitors – stop perpetrating a falsehood. Either you're lying or you are totally unaware.

      There was an exemption for religious organizations almost immediately after the contraception rule was put in place. Everyone who actually followed the stories know that.

      What the deal now is – non religious organizations – just companies run by catholic people – they're saying they won't give their employees health care to cover contraception and the like. And they are calling it 'infringement of their religious freedom'.

      Support it all you like. But let me be the first to wish you someday work for a Jehovah's Witness, who will then be able to disallow you coverage for blood transfusions and blood products by the same reasons. And see if you think that's fair.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Concerned Citizen


      The central issue being......? What exactly? The Obama administration isn't forcing catholics to use birth control, or get abortions etc..., The church is a business that employs people that aren't catholics, who have no problem using birth control and should have the right like everyone else to access to birth control.

      You should also make sure you understand the term "fascist" because you are clearly using it wrong. Obama is no more a fascist than he is a communist or an anarchist,

      September 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Ronaldo

      Concerned, Obama is a socialist and his father was a dedicated communist. Do your homework.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Dorothy

      Contraceptives are no more than a medication (hormone) used for many purposes. Indeed, one such purpose is that it actually decreases the risk for ovarian cancer in celibate women who will never become pregnant. Interesting that a Church the promotes celibacy for its nuns would ban coverage for such a medication. If you worked for a Jehovah Witness Company, would you be okay that if your family member got in an accident and needed an emergency transfusion, it would be a non-covered service (even thought you have no religious belief that would bar that treatment?)

      September 28, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  2. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    So let's see. So far it looks like President Obama is leading Catholics and Jews over Romney. I wonder when he will be in the lead for the Mormon vote?

    September 28, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • notraitors

      If they are as stupid as the rest of the country seems to be, not long

      September 28, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • dunracin

      Joe: It just appears that Catholics and Jews do not really care about their faith or their own people in favor of buying into the lies of a socialist/communist leader that promises help for our poor and middle class. The heck with killing babies, forced contraception and the usurping of our personal freedoms! They would rather vote for a Muslim than a Mormon and to hell with America. They just make me SICK!

      September 28, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • MK

      "...forced contraception".

      How would this work? Would they put it in the drinking water??

      September 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
  3. ksamuelson65

    The Catholic Church suggests that people vote their conscience. If you can live with yourself and profess your faith with a clear conscience and vote for Obama, go for it. I can't...but that's just me.

    September 28, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Dorothy

      You are absolutely right......and I could never vote for Ryan and Romney with a clear conscience. I guess my moral compass tends to swing more with the "nuns of the bus" than with the majority of the hierarchy.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • newsman

      why would ANY Catholic (or Jew) for for this guy...is UNKNOWN to me. suicide!

      September 28, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • saggyroy

      I have voted 3rd party for the past 4 or 5 elections. I am tired of hearing how 3rd parties make so-and-so lose/win. Nope. So-and-so lost on their own.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Patrick in Wisconsin

      More Catholics vote for Democrats because Democrats actually care about the poor and vulnerable, something that has been central to Christianity ever since Jesus himself.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • notraitors

      Dorothy, I didn't think liberals were allowed to use the word "moral"

      September 28, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Veritas

      notraitors. Why?

      September 28, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • dunracin

      Let me get this right, you want to vote for a communist/socialist who believes in killing babies, forcing the church to provide reproductive services against church belief and who supports Muslim causes over Chritian ones because you think he cares and will feed the poor and hungary? God help you!

      GIVE a man a fish and he will eat a meal. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever. Can you even begin to grasp the concept?

      September 28, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • notraitors

      Because, veritas, it is the left which ridicules "family values" and propounds the secular doctrine that there is no absolute morality because everything is relative and "in flux"

      September 28, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • dunracin

      Patrick in Wisconsin
      Above comment is aimed at you!

      September 28, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Veritas

      The left does not ridicule "family values" nor is there a secular doctrine that there is no absolute morality. You appear to think that anyone who does not agree with you has no morals – are you Santorum incognito?
      Why do most religions have these positions against family planning? To get more of the same. To continue the religious doctrine. The GOP claims to be so concerned about life but do little or nothing about the bigger threats to life: food safety, drug safety, road safety, water safety, gun safety, etc., availability of clean water, sufficient food, etc. Overpopulation is a threat to life as we know it – not blaming the catholic church – and food, water, and energy are all becoming problems. Should we retain the mindset of middle eastern nomads centuries ago or should we make decisions based upon what's in front of us.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • Dorothy

      Notraitors....conservatives use the word "moral" while liberals actually live it.

      September 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • Angela

      Liberals actually "live" moral?? I guess that applies to the screaming Cleveland woman talking about her Obamaphone that went viral last week. That woman is middle-aged, at least in her 50's and looks like she is allergic to the idea of employment and hard work ethic. She wouldn't recognize a job if it came up and knocked on her front door. Liberals have become the backward part of society.

      October 2, 2012 at 5:13 am |
  4. IndeePendant


    September 28, 2012 at 10:17 am |
  5. SouthernCelt

    Spoken like a true Yankee Bigot that has never toured the South and is so arrogant they think they are better than everyone else.

    September 28, 2012 at 10:16 am |
  6. R Lamirand

    Ryans church believes In Vitro fertilization is INCEST, No Birth control, tubal ligations, vasectomies or Hysterectomies should be allowed, married women should get pregnant as often as possible even if the womans life would be at risk, the life of a fetus is always above a womans, and a pharmacist should be able to refuse tp fill perscriptions for any birth control method. They demand their religious freedom but have no problem inflicting their beliefs on anyone else. In Indiana recently a woman teacher at a Catholic school was fired for In Vitro even though she was not Catholic. Non Catholic women who deliver in a Catholic hospital have to abide by the churchs edicts which means if there is a problem with delivery or pregnancy the life of the fetus will always be chosen over a woman. The woman or her husband/partner have NO choice in the matter. That is a major reason many obstetricans are not working in delivery at Catholic hospitals. "Blue Dog" democrats like Joe Donnelly (D. Ind.), a Catholic, are just as socially conservative as Ryan.

    September 28, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Female

      Most of you pigs are a cross between Mengele and Jenna Jameson. What till you get a Mengele or Ceucesu back. What did you guys NOT UNDERSTAND about the twentieth century? I am tired of pigs who will not commit (I laud the gay community on marriage – nobody else does it), we can clone a master race – scary!!!!!!!! I think some of the IVF and cloning and abortion of handicapped is right out of the MENGELE playbook. And on top of it, we can and are headed towards a surveillance state that the Stasi would have envied. I guess you pigs do not miss a loving unconditional relationship with a child or parent, a marriage where you do not have to be afraid the pig will walk out – I think self-gratification for me only and money as God is bringing the US down. There are no morals, no ethics, no social cohesion left – you want a Hitler or a Mugabe in here, it is rapidly coming. Another rampage killing today in MN – tired yet?

      September 28, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Chick-a-dee

      @ R Lamirand: Sorry, you just don't know what you're talking about. Ethics are not as simplistic as you suggest. Please use grammar and spell check on your word processor before posting. Even using this page is a minor check as it underlines misspelled words. I suggest you learn something about a topic before commenting on it.

      "Ryans church believes In Vitro fertilization is INCEST," WRONG!

      The church's objections are many but none of them involve incest. While insisting on the dignity of each human life from conception to natural death, the Church also opposes other violations against the sancti.ty of life, besides those involving death or freezing. Human dignity, they noted, is also violated by the very nature of artificial reproduction. "The conception of a human person should be the outcome of the mutual self-giving love of the married couple," Archbishop Cremona and Bishop Grech affirmed. "This gift is realized through their se.xual intimacy, an action through which the man and the woman become 'one body.'" "Therefore, bearing in mind this value, the conception of new life cannot be treated solely as a biological act. Neither can it be a technical process which produces embryos as if they were objects." Their pastoral letter cited Pope Paul VI's encyclical "Humanae Vitae," which not only condemned contraception, but also articulated the general principle that couples may not break the "inseparable connection" that exists "between the unitive significance and the procreative significance" of s.ex.

      "No Birth control, tubal ligations, vasectomies or Hysterectomies should be allowed, married women should get pregnant as often as possible even if the womans life would be at risk," Mostly WRONG!

      *ARTIFICIAL* birth control is prohibited, not natural methods. A married man and woman may postpone conception by practicing natural family planning (http://nfpandmore.org/ for information on how). I use it. It does work. It is the same method couples use to GET pregnant except instead of timing intercourse during a fertile period (3 days out of the cycle) you time it for the infertile period (the other 25 days). Sterilization is self mutilation and it is prohibited.

      "the life of a fetus is always above a womans," WRONG!

      Conditions of licit abortion in the view of the Church:
      "IN DIRECT abortion a living and nonviable fetus is removed from the
      uterus. The reason for the removal is that the pregnancy, added to
      some pathological condition from which the mother is suffering,
      increases her difficulties or even lessens her chances of survival.
      No condition exists, however, which makes the removal of the uterus
      itself necessary as a means of saving the mother's life.

      The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
      excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
      necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
      fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
      the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
      effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
      see immediately, it is permissible to perform.

      It is licit to excise a diseased uterus which is gravely dangerous,
      even though the operation will indirectly kill the fetus which is
      enclosed in the womb. The reason is that we may rightly apply the
      four conditions of the principle of the twofold effect. The first
      condition is fulfilled, for the operating surgeon's intention is to
      save the life of the mother. He, of course, foresees the death of the
      fetus, but he does not desire this evil effect. The second condition
      is fulfilled, for the surgeon's act consists in ridding the woman of
      a diseased part of her body which is jeopardizing her life. Hence
      that which he sets out to accomplish is licit. If the fetus were not
      present, the surgical operation of removing a diseased and dangerous
      part of the woman's body, the cancerous uterus, would obviously be an
      act which of its nature is not evil. The presence of the living fetus
      in the diseased womb does not alter the nature of the act which the
      surgeon performs. The operation is directly remedial regarding the
      mother's body and is in itself unconnected with the pregnancy. The
      third condition is fulfilled, for the evil effect (the death of the
      fetus) does not cause the good effect (saving the life of the
      mother). Whether the fetus were harmed by the operation or not would
      make no difference in regard to producing the good effect. The fourth
      condition is fulfilled, for safeguarding the mother's health is a
      proportionately grave reason for permitting the death of the fetus.

      The physician who performs an operation of this kind should have a
      nurse procure beforehand a basin of lukewarm water in which the fetus
      may be baptized immediately after the uterus is removed from the
      mother. When the diseased womb has been extracted from the woman's
      body, it should be cut open at once and the fetus should be baptized.
      If the fetus is very small, baptism by immersion would be preferable.
      If the fetus is enclosed in the sacs or membranes, the latter must of
      course be removed, so that in the baptism the water will touch the
      head of the infant.

      In all such operations, where the surgery has important bearing on
      two lives and not merely one, the surgeon must be sure that the
      reason for operating is a proportionately grave one. If, for example,
      the fetus is near viability and an immediate hysterectomy would only
      probably, and not certainly, diminish the danger of death to the
      mother, the operation would be illicit. In this case the pregnant
      uterus may not be excised; for since the surgery would bring certain
      death to the fetus, the latter's certain right to life must take
      precedence over the mother's right to a doubtful benefit. Again, if
      excising the uterus would only probably indirectly cause the death of
      the fetus, surgery would be licit if needed to remove probable danger
      to the mother's life. If, moreover, the operation would rarely result
      in death for the fetus, it would be licitly performed when necessary,
      not to save the mother's life, but to cure her of a grave disease. A
      remote hope of saving the mother justifies surgery which is necessary
      to prevent death of both the mother and the child, for the surgeon is
      doing all in his power to save both. It is taken for granted that
      there are no other effective means which would not endanger the

      Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy

      In the tubal ectopic pregnancy the fertilized ovum lodges in some
      part of the Fallopian tube. The reason that it does not continue its
      descent into the uterus may be the pathological condition of the tube
      itself or of the ovum. Once the fertilized ovum takes up its nesting
      place in the tube, it begins to bore into the wall of the tube,
      seeking as it does life-giving nourishment. This "boring-in" action
      on the part of the tiny embryo perforates the inner layers of the
      tube and the tube soon becomes weakened by internal hemorrhaging.
      There is present a pathological condition of the tube, caused by the
      erosive action of the trophoblast which is destroying the muscle wall
      and penetrating blood vessels. The growing fetus causes the tube to
      swell, and this swelling dangerously stretches the tube's outer wall.
      Left in this condition, the tube will ordinarily rupture; and unless
      surgery is performed very soon after the rupturing, the mother may

      When the Fallopian tube is in this condition, would it be licit to
      slit it open and remove the fetus? Obviously this action would be
      gravely evil, for it would const.itute a direct, unjust attack on the
      life of an innocent fetus. It would, in short, be murder. In such a
      procedure the operating surgeon would set out to destroy the fetus as
      a means of curing the mother, and thus he would directly intend its
      death. The same conclusion would follow if the physician used drugs,
      X ray, or any other method directly to terminate the life of the

      Would it, however, be likewise illicit to excise a Fallopian tube
      which contains a living fetus? If the tube itself is healthy, there
      would of course be no justifying reason for the excision. But in the
      case of an ectopic pregnancy the Fallopian tube is in a definitely
      pathological condition. Its inner portion is riddled, greatly
      weakened, and full of internal hemorrhaging.

      Once the tube has ruptured externally, the physician may and should
      immediately tie off the arteries which supply blood to the tube and
      then remove the tube by surgery. This operation is obviously
      justified, for in it are fully verified the four conditions required
      for the application of the principle of the twofold effect. The
      excision of this ruptured and gravely dangerous part of the mother's
      body is similar, in respect to the moral law, to the removal of a
      pregnant uterus whose cancerous condition is at present gravely
      threatening the mother's life.

      But let us suppose that the tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy
      has not yet ruptured. Must the surgeon, before the excision, wait
      until an external rupture occurs? The answer is that, if the tube is
      at present in a gravely dangerous condition and if its excision
      cannot be delayed without a notable increase of danger to the mother,
      this Fallopian tube may be removed at once. This conclusion is based
      on two principles: ( 1) Mutilation is licit if it is required to
      conserve the health of the whole body. (2 ) An act which has two
      effects, one good, the other bad, may be licitly performed, given
      certain conditions. The latter principle is correctly applied to the
      present case. The first condition is fulfilled, for the surgeon's
      intention is good. He has as his purpose in operating the saving of
      the mother's life. He foresees, it is true, that the fetus will die
      when the tube where it is resting is removed from the woman's body,
      but he does not desire its death. This is a merely permitted evil
      effect. The second condition is fulfilled, for the surgeon's action
      is not intrinsically evil. That which he sets out to accomplish is
      cutting away a pathological or diseased part of the woman's body. The
      third condition is fulfilled, for the action's evil effect (the death
      of the fetus) does not cause the good effect (the preserving of the
      mother's health). Whether the fetus died or not would hardly affect
      the mother's health. It is the ridding the body of a seriously
      corrupted part which directly promotes the mother's well-being. It is
      not the fetus which at present const.itutes the threat to the mother's
      life; it is the diseased organ. The fourth condition is fulfilled,
      for there is due proportion between the evil effect and the good
      effect. The death that will result for the fetus is compensated for
      by the life that will be saved for the mother.

      In the analysis of the application of the fourth condition to our
      present case, it is well to bear in mind the following facts. Tubal
      pregnancies practically never go to term. In about ninety-nine cases
      out of a hundred the fetus is aborted (and usually this will occur
      before the twelfth week), or the tube ruptures externally; and in
      either case the fetus will perish. Hence when one considers excising
      a dangerously weakened but externally unruptured tube in ectopic
      pregnancy, the choice lies between the following two modes of
      procedure: ( 1) permitting the tube to remain in the woman's body
      until it ruptures externally. This will bring death to the fetus and
      will imperil the life of the mother; or (2) excising the tube at
      once. This latter operation will bring to the mother safety but to
      the fetus death. In the first procedure the fetus is, practically
      speaking, just as certain to die as in the second procedure. As far
      as the fetus is concerned, the difference between the first procedure
      and the second procedure is that in the first procedure its life
      probably would be lengthened by a few weeks. Hence in evaluating the
      fourth condition the physician must have sufficient cause for
      permitting the life of the fetus to be shortened because of the
      excision of the tube.

      Is it, then, licit in every case of ectopic pregnancy to excise the
      diseased Fallopian tube? The answer is that the operation is licit
      if the tube is at present gravely dangerous to the mother, or if
      putting off the operation would involve grave danger. The physician
      is the one who must decide when the tube may be considered to be
      gravely dangerous. He must judge each individual case on its own
      merits. The general rule which should be followed is this: If delay
      in excising the diseased Fallopian tube would gravely jeopardize the
      mother's life, the physician may operate at once. The ultimate
      decision in a particular case is in the hands of the physician. It
      may be that in most cases where an ectopic pregnancy is found, the
      removal of the tube at once is required to avert existing and grave
      danger from the mother. But this is not true in all cases. In some
      few cases at least there is no grave danger to the mother when the
      ectopic is first discovered. In these few cases the immediate removal
      of the tube is not licit. The diseased tube may not be excised until
      it is a source of grave danger to the mother. To excise the tube
      before this time would indirectly shorten the life of the ectopic
      fetus without a sufficient reason, and this would be illicit. Hence
      in all cases in which grave danger is not actually present the
      physician must adopt the expectant treatment.

      There are cases in which the surgeon discovers an ectopic pregnancy
      during the course of a surgical operation; for example, an
      appendectomy. May he immediately excise the tube if to wait would
      necessitate performing another grave operation? In this event,
      because the expectant treatment would involve so great an added
      danger to the mother, the surgeon may at once remove the pathological
      tube. The same solution is to be given when the patient would have to
      be kept under constant observation in a hospital and she refuses to
      be hospitalized because she cannot afford the expense.

      There are circu.mstances when the physician will sincerely doubt about
      the gravity of the danger in a particular ectopic pregnancy. In that
      event he may and should give the mother the benefit of the doubt. The
      reason is that an immediate operation will probably have the good
      effect of saving the mother's life, and will probably have the bad
      effect of indirectly shortening to some extent the fetus' life. The
      good effect will thus greatly outweigh the evil effect. Hence the
      physician preferably will excise the diseased tube at once.

      Misconceptions concerning the principles involved can arise because
      of the fact that the diseased condition of the tube is due to the
      fetus. Is it not true, one may argue, that the tube's weakened and
      hemorrhaging condition was brought about by the fetus? Is not the
      excision of the tube intended to rid the mother of the fetus, the
      cause of her danger? We reply to this objection by admitting that
      the fetus did cause the present riddled condition of the tube; but,
      we add, the tube itself is now seriously diseased and would remain
      diseased quite independently of the fetus. It is the tube itself, not
      the fetus, which const.itutes the present grave danger to the mother;
      and so, given certain conditions, it may be excised.

      Some who are not acquainted with the facts believe that the Catholic
      Church has changed her att.itude in regard to the licitness of doing
      surgery on ectopic pregnancies. Up to the present day the Church has
      made only a few official pronouncements on this question, and these
      pronouncements refer to the direct attack of the surgeon on the fetus
      or to the direct removal of a nonviable fetus from the mother's womb.
      Such procedures even today are condemned by all Catholic moralists.
      On these questions the Church has not changed her view. Catholic
      ethicians, however, have changed their view with regard to the
      licitness of excising the unruptured Fallopian tube in an ectopic
      pregnancy, but this change of opinion stemmed from new medical
      findings on this matter. Fifty years ago there was little medical
      knowledge available with reference to the pathology of an ectopic
      pregnancy. When medical authorities provided the information that the
      diseased condition of the Fallopian tube, even before its external
      rupture, in many cases of ectopic pregnancy const.ituted a grave and
      present danger to the mother's life, the moralists declared that the
      excision of the tube was licit even though the death of the fetus
      could not be prevented. The moralists made no change in regard to
      principles or in the application of principles. They merely applied
      the principles to new facts and arrived at a new conclusion. It is
      for physicians accurately to present the facts to the moralist. He
      depends on them for medical information. Given the medical
      information necessary, he will then apply the ethical principles to
      the case and pronounce upon the licitness or illicitness of certain

      Ovarian and Abdominal Pregnancies

      If an ectopic pregnancy is clinging to an ovary or to the woman's
      viscera, may the surgeon remove it? The solution to this case is
      similar to that given in the case of a tubal pregnancy. If the organ
      to which the fetus is clinging has become so diseased or weakened
      that it is now a grave source of danger to the woman, the organ may
      be licitly excised. The organ may have become diseased independently
      of the fetus or it may have become riddled and weakened because of
      the "boring-in" action of the fetus. The initial source of the
      danger does not matter. If at present the condition of the organ is
      actually pathological and if it is a grave threat to the mother's
      life, that part of her body may licitly be removed in order to
      preserve the rest of the body. The same norms about delaying the
      operation when delay is possible apply in this case as in that of a
      tubal pregnancy.

      It will be noted that, in all the solutions which have been given,
      the fetus itself is never directly attacked. A pathological organ
      which is threatening the mother's life is removed, just as it would
      be removed if it contained no fetus; and the death of the fetus is
      permitted as a secondary effect of the operation. It is conceivable
      that there might be a rare case in which the fetus has taken up its
      lodging next to a vital organ which cannot be removed, such as the
      liver. If the fetus continues its riddling process, the organ will
      soon be destroyed and the mother will die. Should such a case ever
      occur in medical practice, the only thing that could be done to save
      the mother would be to remove the fetus; and the only argument that
      could be alleged to justify the removal would be that the fetus, now
      actually attacking a vital organ of the mother, is an unjust
      aggressor. The claim that the fetus can ever be, under any
      circ.umstances, an unjust aggressor cannot be accepted as correct. The
      fetus is a living human being. It has been placed by nature where it
      now resides. It had no voice in the decision. It cannot be called an
      unjust aggressor, for it is engaged in a purely natural process.
      Surely we may not call nature unjust. To do so would be to call into
      question the justice of God, the Author of nature, and this is
      unthinkable. Hence we must conclude that the fetus may, in no
      conceivable set of circu.mstances, be directly killed, for this would
      be murder. This judgment is confirmed by the words of Pius XI: "What
      could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct
      murder of the innocent? . . . Who would call an innocent child an
      unjust aggressor?"

      September 28, 2012 at 11:33 am |
  7. Wade

    This is a flat out lie. No self respecting Catholic would ever be caught dead voting for Obama.

    September 28, 2012 at 9:39 am |
    • Huebert

      Another instance of the No True Catholic fallacy.

      September 28, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • Amniculi

      Wrong also in that the Catholic Church is in most ways socially progressive – with a few hold-ups like abortion and contraception.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • sally

      You couldn't be further from the truth. And I am finding both young and old for various reasons either don't trust Romney completely, or they are too worried about what the Rummy pirate might do to Medicare, etc. to give him the opportunity.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Patrick in Wisconsin

      I beg to differ sir. Seeing how Romney et all clearly has no sympathy for the poor and vulnerable (not the least from bus 47% comments), Mormon aside, I don't see how any self respecting Catholic could vote for the supply-side panderer that is Mitt Romney. Thankfully, most don't anyways.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • dunracin

      Then why are SO MANY "CATHOLICS" voting for him. I guess church doctrine and teaching means very little to the Catholic faith. More emphasis on the poor than to KILLING unborn children. More concern for feeding a few hungry than the loss of personal freedoms. I am starting to understand that "practicing Catholic" means just practicing and not learning much!

      September 28, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  8. Madrep

    Really? CNN, you are way out there on this one. Anything for your hero right? Obama lost the Catholic vote a long time agon and reinforced it by the way they were treated at the DNC in Charlotte. It's no wonder people are after your biased article reporting BS.

    September 28, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Patrick in Wisconsin

      I see your strategy here. Everything is BS unless it comes to the same conclusion as you. Good plan.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • dunracin

      You, sir, are unfortuately VERY WRONG! The majority of Catholics apparently care more about feeding some drunken bum at a mission than the killing of babies, forced contraception and the destruction of America by a Muslim sympathizing, socialist/communist!

      September 28, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Chick-a-dee

      He didn't lose all of the Catholic vote. There are a few planks in the democratic platform that I don't like at all and are so bothersome that I've been weighed down for the past four months about what to do with my vote. In the end I just cannot vote for Romney. His, or rather his and Ryan's, economic policy is evil. And Romney makes me feel like he has an evil or demonic influence.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
  9. Norma Vessels

    In increasing numbers, some churches are tending toward the political world .. but, they also are against any
    rules that come from the Government into their Church. Some churches want it both ways, and not pay any taxes
    to have that privilege. Stay out of the political arena, if you don't want to go by the rules.

    September 28, 2012 at 9:16 am |
  10. palintwit

    Repeated studies have shown that there is a greater incidence of child molestation and incest among southern white evangelical christians than in any other group. Living in tightly cramped quarters (such as trailer parks) is one of the main causes of perverted behavior among christians. Those requiring further proof need only to take a casual drive south of the Mason-Dixon Line. The abundance of toothless christian cretins you will see are a direct result of years of inbreeding.
    Oddly enough, many of these christian misfits make their way north or west where they can be found working in gas stations and car washes.

    September 28, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      Don't forget. They also get elected to Congress as Republicans.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • notraitors

      I lived south of the Mason Dixon line for almost 4 years and never encountered the people you describe in your post.

      You liberals say you hate stereotyping yet stereotype Southerners. Sound like "do as I say not as I do."

      Care to give us the data on the relationship between crime and all the fatherless boys in the 'hood?

      September 28, 2012 at 11:58 am |
  11. cashmeremafia

    I think the Catholic church criticizing Ryan's policies as working against the poor and lower class probably figured into the equation; however, I agree with the church's position of forcing the church to pay for birth control coverage for its employees, IMO a definite intrusion between church and state, he should have left that issue alone.

    September 28, 2012 at 8:00 am |
    • saggyroy

      But it is not an intrusion of church and state to try and influence the faithful on how to vote?

      September 28, 2012 at 8:33 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Of course Obama is not forcing churches to pay for birth control coverage – you probably even know that, but it is a line you have learned to repeat.

      September 28, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Lisa

      He's not forcing "the church" to pay for birth control. They have an exemption, however church based organizations i.e. hospitals do. Quite different despite you and others trying to confuse the two.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Wrenn_NYC

      " however, I agree with the church's position of forcing the church to pay for birth control coverage for its employees, IMO a definite intrusion between church and state, he should have left that issue alone.

      You are so far behind the times. Almost immediately there was an exception for churches and church run businesses on this issue.

      It wasn't enough. The church's stand on this is that as a moral issue of conscience, Joe Catholic who owns a (non religious based) company should be able to deny his employees such coverage as well. This is what the Church is shouting about as a 'violation of religious freedom' The 'right' of an employer who happens to be an average catholic to deny the employee of his firm this coverage. And this is wrong. Because it violates the rights of the employers.

      I fully support the right of a church and a church run business or school to have an exception. We already have exceptions in place that allow such to have moral clauses in employee contracts. For example, a teacher at a catholic school must agree go uphold catholic values and live by them, and the like. Such a teacher gettinig pregnant outside of marriage – is grounds for dismissal. But to allow Joe Catholic who runs the local hardware store to do the same? No.

      Health care coverage, when you look at it and it's history, shows it for what it is. A benefit. Part of your pay package. It took off during the wage freeze period during WWII, when by law employers couldn't increase wages, but they could offer other incentives. Health care. Child care. Free lunches (I have had jobs that still have the last. Banks mostly did this).

      Health care is part of your pay package. An employer not a church or church run business should not be able to tell you what you can spend your health care benefit on, anymore than they can tell you you can't use the money they pay you with to buy that hamburger on friday in lent. Once it's given to you, it's yours.

      Then ask yourself this. Do you want to be Joe Catholic's employee... and not be able to, say, use your health care for invitro, if you need it to have a child (something else the catholic church is against). Refuse to cover tubal ligation (No joke A Texas bishop stopped two Catholic hospitals from performing such procedures., it's no stretch to put it in this category) or a hysterectomy?

      Then take it further. A Jehovah's Witness employer. They would be allowed to deny their employees blood transfusions and any and all blood products?

      How about a Muslim employer or a ultra jewish one? Quite a number of our every day prescription drugs use pig gelatin as an ingredient. They haven't found a similar ingredient that can replace it. Most Jewish rabbis and a lot of imams make an exception for this, but not all.

      It's something to think about.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Wrenn_NYC

      Third para should end 'it violates the rights of the employees'

      Sorry about that

      September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am |
  12. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    September 28, 2012 at 5:15 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      From a Christian, I want to ask....I am not sure what Faith you are but ask yourself.... was the message of Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and all other prophets, just the same line over and over? Did not the messengers of God vary their messages a bit? God has given you a voice and mind to think, ...there has to be more to being Faithful than pis'sing off Atheist with single line cut and paste over and over.

      September 28, 2012 at 5:22 am |
    • truth be told

      There are two wonderful truths represented. One thing for sure Mohammed does not belong in the same sentence with Jesus. You can't distinguish the Truth from the lies.

      September 28, 2012 at 6:19 am |
    • sam ston ine

      i agree, mark.

      of course, folks like tbt are in sole possession of The Truth (TM) and all others are LIES (TM)

      September 28, 2012 at 7:40 am |
    • Sabina

      Good. Let's pray that Barack Obama is re-elected and see if it works.

      September 28, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is: "TOTAL FAIL".

      I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
      by the Alzheimer's Disease Society

      September 28, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Veritas

      tbt. Why do they not belong in the same sentence? In Islam Jesus is a recognized as a prophet. Or is your religion so superior you have trademark and copyright to everyone in the NT – be careful with that or Juadaism might do the same with the OT.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  13. Sandra

    I'm a "white Catholic" who attends Mass regularly, and I'm voting for Obama. I'm stunned by the bishops' position against contraceptives when the biggest problem facing the world today is overpopulation. Shortages of food and water are already becoming an issue.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>"when the biggest problem facing the world today is overpopulation."

      There are so many folks that feel that their pet project or gripe is the "biggest problem" facing the world. Is it Nuclear Weapons, the damage to the environment, diseases and super bugs, clashes if cultures..races.. gender issues. Everyone believes they know what is just over the horizon ready to render us all extinct.

      Well to address your "over population" fears, National Geographic did a study and found that the entire worlds population, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, could fit within the 500 square miles (1,300 square kilometers) of Los Angeles. Not The United States ..not the entire state of California ... just a single City.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:46 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One


      How do you deal with the "cafeteria Catholic" label? It reduces to "No True Catholic would think that" but you hear it often enough.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:56 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Mark, it would be nice if all that humankind asked of the world is 1300 square kilometers.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:59 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      I agree Tom Tom. Maybe its just miss-management of the resources we have. We can feed the entire planet but so much gets between the farmer and the poor starving person.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:08 am |
    • Clarissa

      Just because someone points out "one of the biggest problems" doesn't mean they are ignoring the rest of the problems, they just felt to use that example as support in their claim. Hop off. seriously.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • redzoa

      "Well to address your "over population" fears, National Geographic did a study and found that the entire worlds population, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, could fit within the 500 square miles (1,300 square kilometers) of Los Angeles. Not The United States ..not the entire state of California ... just a single City."

      Unfortunately, humans aren't statues and require significant resources and produce significant waste. In other words, we require significant land area to sustain us and not all land is amenable to this purpose. Granted, "overpopulation" is a loaded phrase. Is India overpopulated because it has 1.2 billion people v. the U.S. and our 300 million? Or is the U.S. overpopulated because its per capita consumption of resources is far above any other nation? Furthermore, while there is a limited carrying capacity within any environment, to what extent can technology expand this carrying capacity (for example, innovation in food production and energy efficiency)? Further still, overpopulation in a given area reflects both cultural and economic factors. We know that, generally speaking, availability of education, birth control and economic opportunity tends to delay female child-bearing and reduce the number of children born. The inverse correlation has been hypothesized to reflect any number of factors, for example, higher child mortality rates v. needs for labor and dependence on children to provide support when parents grow old and can no longer take care of themselves.

      Suffice it to say, "overpopulation" is not a single issue, but requires consideration of many independent, yet overlapping issues.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:19 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>”Hop off. Seriously.:

      ROFL. I did not say that, but it is annoying that every special interest group declares that the problems that they are facing is the “biggest problem”. What I want to see is Sandra and her “biggest problem” meet up with a Women's Cancer group. I would wonder how that would work … One promoting the fight to cure cancer meeting someone who feels that the world has too many people on it already?

      Which would you feel is right Clarrisa. I guess I can finish with a ending of my generation …

      …. “Step Off Holmes... Yo, you don't know” 🙂

      “Word to your mother”

      >>>”Suffice it to say, "overpopulation" is not a single issue, but requires consideration of many independent, yet overlapping issues.”

      I agree Redzoa, but we have the media running stories that are claiming that countries such as J'apan and countries in the EU are in crisis mode due to the dramatic drop in the birth rates within their countries. When you stated innovations and better use of energy, that is part of the general “management” of what we have, which I feel is an issue. I feel the planet can sustain a much larger population but because we would rather spend our capital on other things we as a world wide society will fail. Think about it... the world has the technology to build functional desalination plants. We have had the technology for a while. So, the small tennie tiny Berkley Liberal part of myself. That part that Al Gore keeps trying to reach.... has to ask, why on a planet that is mostly covered with water.. are we we having any sorta of water issues? It makes no sense to me. Cost... both sides spend millions on everything from fighter planes to finding our why two mice choose to burp on a solar eclipse.

      So, when I see ones such as Sandra state that overpopulation is our biggest issue, I say nay... management of farmland, water and land can solve so many problems. With out stepping into the GM crop debate... there is no reason that any one should go hungry or die of a lack of drinkable water.

      September 28, 2012 at 5:02 am |
    • John

      The confessional is over there. Get in line, repent, and stop sinning.

      September 28, 2012 at 6:15 am |
    • Name*dunracin

      Shame, shame upon you. Our freedoms are disappearing and you are voting for a habitual liar who wants to take even more!

      September 28, 2012 at 7:32 am |
    • Bob

      We are charged with respecting life and leaving it's beginnings and endings in God's hands. This is non-negotiable for Catholics, or should be, and there is a deep reason for it. When people start controlling life and death, it creates an illusion that we are equipped and intended to do so when we are not, and reduces our respect for God. Rather than seeking to embrace and understand His decisions on matters of life, we inflict our will on life, and nothing good comes from that. Like all things human, it becoms a slippery slope once we think we are in control. Birth control is the same philosophy as abortion, it's just implemented differently. Both are examples of humans believing they know when how and why to control life and death. If Catholics partake in and support birth control, abortion is next, and after that becomes accepted, eugenics and genocide.

      Even though the real data doesn't support the idea that overpopulation is a legit problem (that is actually a lie perpetrated by the atheist powerbrokers of the world like Bill Gates in conjunction with major chemical and agricultural companies like Monsanto), if Catholics venerate life like we are supposed, and for some reason, overpopulation and the demise of the world ensue, then we can feel like the demise of the world is meant to happen, and we all know it's going to happen someday, somehow anyway, and we should look forward to it as part of God's inevitable plan.

      September 28, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • Female

      I think both the "clinicalized" left and the God and guns right serve a purpose for those whom you do not understand. Business, special interests, what-have-you.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • dunracin

      Let me get this right, you want to vote for a communist/socialist who believes in killing babies, forcing the church to provide reproductive services against church tenants and who supports Muslim causes over Christian ones because you think he cares and will feed the poor and hungary? God help you! Maybe the church should be MORE concerned about TEACHING abstinense and finding work for people to feed themselves!

      GIVE a man a fish and he will eat a meal. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever. Can you even begin to grasp the concept?

      September 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
  14. Oblio

    With the loss of the Catholic vote Mr. Romney is reduced to what? A few Jews who actually want us to go to war with Iran, a handful of Evangelicals who never really got that Holy Trinity business anyway, and one or two Mormons of course.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:30 am |
    • Chick-a-dee

      Seriously, that would be fitting. Besides all the legitimate rational reasons to dislike him, Romney just makes the hair on the back of my neck stick up. There is something really wrong with a man who tries to pass himself off as a Christian yet not only does not believe that Jesus is the second person of the triune God but also DOES believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers! What is that all about !?! There has got to be something demonic going on with that. I don't understand how ANY Catholic can vote for him regardless of any other electoral circ.umstances.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
  15. Mitt Romney's Flying Circus

    Hi! I'm Mitt Romney, and I have already lost. I have to keep doing this for another six weeks, but even I know the race is run and my presidential ambitions have been flung into in the dustbin of history.

    Note to self: magic undies failed big time. Prayer failed big time. It's almost like there isn't a god. Exactly like there isn't a god.

    September 28, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • Kat

      Well, looks like Obama's got the atheist vote. Works for me!

      September 28, 2012 at 1:22 am |
  16. mishu

    I am a "Black" Catholic....Black does not define me....I will never vote for a Mormon bishop who thinks he is the White Horse (not the rider on the white horse mind you) referred to in the Book of Revelation....People should wake up to Mitt Romney and who he really is....He think he is a god....

    September 28, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      Sad though that so many in our community felt that Obama was the second coming of Martin Luther King and after four years our unemployment numbers and our African American Middle Class are worst than under G.W.Bush.

      Obama had a vision of change for our community, shame that it has turned to a change for the worst. 🙁

      September 28, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • Clarissa

      Actually you are wrong, unemployment went from 10.4 to 8.2% and in his first couple of months of office 4.3 million jobs were lost (due to previous policies by Bush) and 4.4 million jobs were gained back in the healthcare fields and other fields. SO the conclusion is that you are wrong and I am right, therefor you should go read some statistics and THEN come back.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:15 am |
    • Mark From Middle River

      >>>”SO the conclusion is that you are wrong and I am right, therefor you should go read some statistics and THEN come back.'

      Ok, ….Clarrisa I will take that challenge. Since I was speaking of African Americans and how sadly so many of in the African American community considered Obama to be the one to do better by our community, I am so sorry but you are wrong Clarrisa. I did not want to pull the statistics from a Right Wing site so I will pull them from CNN and other sites and they prove you, without doubt wrong.



      On CNN's site it shoes in in January of 2007...that is before Obama took office the unemployment rate for African Americans was 7.9%....meaning under G.W.Bush, according to the “statistics” of CNN the unemployment rate of African Americans was 7.9%. Flash forward four years under Obama and the unemployment rate for our community is 14.4%

      7.9% African Americans under G.W.Bush

      14.4 % African Americans under B.Obama

      Just, to put your argument to bed ….here is Forbes.


      You, notice that Obama bailed out his friends on Wall Street though and those friends have been doing pretty well. The African American Communty …. not so well.

      >>>”.... and THEN come back.”

      I am back ...with statistics.... and with your failing grade Clarissa. How did they say ..weighed, measured and found wanting... 🙂

      September 28, 2012 at 4:36 am |
    • John

      Voting for someone because he looks like you isn't smart strategy. Grow up.

      September 28, 2012 at 6:17 am |
  17. Dorothy

    This isn't surprising at all. With the recent scandals along with a less than pastoral stance by American Bishops on issues most relevant to the average Catholic, they have lost most, if not all, of their moral credibility. On the other hand, you have religious sisters – like the "nuns on the bus" who are advocating on social justice issues and condemning the Ryan budget. They along with many of the laity who are theologically educated have become the new moral authority in Catholicism. And who says God doesn't have a good sense of humor!

    September 28, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Angela

      Seriously, there are thousands of nuns in the U.S. who do not agree with your "nuns on the bus" theory, and those nuns are compassionate and generous in their own right. They just don't happen to be a bunch of liberal feminazi's.

      October 2, 2012 at 5:23 am |
  18. Reality

    Only for new members of this blog:

    Why the Christian Right and "Catholics" no longer matter in presidential elections:

    Once again, all the conservative votes in the country "ain't" going to help a "pro-life" presidential candidate, i.e Mitt Romney, in 2012 as the "Immoral Majority" rules the country and will be doing so for awhile. The "Immoral Majority" you ask?

    The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million "IM" voters in 2012.

    2008 Presidential popular vote results:

    69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM.

    And the irony:

    And all because many women fail to take the Pill once a day or men fail to use a condom even though in most cases these men have them in their pockets. (maybe they should be called the "Stupid Majority"?)

    The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer birth control methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.


    September 28, 2012 at 12:38 am |

      there would be fewer jerk-offs to spew the obvious ad defecatum.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    • Reality

      "Facts on Contraceptive Use


      January 2008


      • 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]
      • 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.[2]
      • The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use contraceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]

      • Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had inte-rcourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2](and men?)
      • Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)
      • 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inter-course; or are not s-exually active.[2]
      • Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.[2] (and men?)
      • Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.[2] (and men?)

      • 64% of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use reversible methods, such as oral contraceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]


      Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unplanned pregnancy (a few examples)

      Method Typical

      Pill (combined) 8.7
      Tubal sterilization 0.7
      Male condom 17.4
      Vas-ectomy 0.2
      Periodic abstinence 25.3
      Calendar 9.0
      Ovulation Method 3.0
      Sympto-thermal 2.0
      Post-ovulation 1.0
      No method 85.0"
      (Abstinence) 0
      (Mas-turbation) 0

      More facts about co-ntraceptives from

      Con-traceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002
      Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users

      Pill 11,661 30.6
      Male condom 6,841 18.0 "

      The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).
      0.087 (failure rate)
      x 62 million (# child bearing women)
      x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
      x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =
      1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of pill use.

      For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level):

      1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.

      The Guttmacher Insti-tute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
      (35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).

      o Bottom Line #1: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.

      Bottom line #2-
      Currently, a perfect barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, mono-ma-sturbation or mutual ma-sturbation are highly recommended for hete-rose-xuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?

      September 28, 2012 at 10:38 am |
    • Chick-a-dee

      I want to know why our Bishops aren't spending their time and energy teaching the virtue of chasti.ty instead of stirring the pot over birth control and abortion. It seems that if same amount of energy was exerted in this pastoral pursuit it would fix the other two problems more effectively than what they have been doing the past forty or fifty years.

      September 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  19. Sony Bozo & Chair

    Proof that GOD is rational: the lay Catholics are dismissing what the crazy BISHOPs are ranting and advertising 😉

    September 27, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
  20. The Right Left

    Romney is losing every major demographics except, white blue collar males. Not enough to go ver the top. By embracing the extremists in the GOP, he has jumped into teh quicksands of politics. The more he struggles, the deeper his problems get.

    September 27, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.